Middle Holocene Avulsion-Belt Deposits in the Central Rhine–Meuse Delta, The Netherlands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Schoonrewoerd fluvial system in the central Rhine–Meuse delta was active as a Rhine distributary between 3900 and 3800 14C years BP. Based on planform patterns, cross-sectional facies architecture, reconstructed paleodischarge, and its short period of activity, the Schoonrewoerd fluvial system is interpreted to represent a failed avulsion. The Schoonrewoerd system consists of a complex of (ribbon) channel sand bodies encased in a lens of clayey deposits, and it can be traced for more than 35 km in a downstream direction. Prominent features of the system are longitudinal facies-architecture change, with channel sand-body width/thickness ratio decreasing downstream from ~ 40 to 5, and high lateral facies variability. Multiple anastomosing sand bodies occur in its upper and middle reaches. Paleodischarge reconstruction indicates that the Schoonrewoerd system was only a minor distributary within the Rhine–Meuse deltaic system. Specific stream power in the lower reach is estimated to have been low (0.5 to 1.8 W/m2). The short period of activity of the Schoonrewoerd system suggests that very high floodplain sedimentation rates were associated with the avulsion process, with the formation of meters-thick fine-grained sedimentary successions in ~ 100 years. The facies architecture of the short-lived Schoonrewoerd system is interpreted to reflect the first stages of avulsion (broadly analogous to the modern Saskatchewan River avulsion in Canada; Smith et al. 1989, Sedimentology, v. 36, p. 1–23), having escaped from later erosion by a more mature channel belt. Many other systems (often partly eroded) with similar facies architecture exist in the west-central Rhine–Meuse delta, suggesting that "avulsion-belt deposits" are a major component of the Holocene delta deposits. The facies-architecture model of the Schoonrewoerd avulsion-belt deposits presented in this paper may provide clues for the interpretation of fine-grained sedimentary successions in ancient fluviodeltaic deposits.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".